Monday, September 22, 2014

Same Sex Marriage- Mandatory! Same Sex Club-Prohibited!

I am amused, when not amazed by the permutations of the Left in the ever changing world of "social justice." Connecticut has ceased to be the "Land of Steady Habits" and is now the land of "What's Happening Now." Here Wesyleyan has banned same sex clubs, but of course, requires recognition of same sex marriages.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/22/wesleyan-rules-fraternities-must-start-accepting-w/?W
Freedom is the right to do what liberals want you to.
N.R. has noted the change:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388767/university-forcing-its-fraternities-admit-women-ensure-equality-katherine-timpf

7 comments:

JCC
said...

I have yet to hear a coherant argument for why two competent adults in a committed, loving relationship should not be allowed to marry. Even if they are not capable of bearing children together. Or even if they ARE capable of bearing children together, but choose not to.

Come on Dave you know darn well Wesleyan is one of those outfits that requires recognition of same sex marriage and support for it of every faculty member, and pressures any student group that doesn't yell "yea" to the new dictat. Don't be pedantic. In any event I noted it was a typical Connecticut actor. Finally, who is it up to? Oh yea, not the voter.

Also, the coherent argument is that what you describe is not marriage. It is a new thing under the sun and should be legislatively created and called by a new name. When you cease to call only real marriage "marriage" and the ersatz thing modernity wishes to foist on us is called marriage it ceases to be as strong an institution for children's upbringing and well being. And if you haven't heard more its because you have not looked. It is no surprise that SSM only appears when marriage has already been so devalued as to be nearly meaningless.

The idea that there are no arguments against the transformation of a basic human institution into something different by left-wing ideology is nonsense. It was cogently made by Burke in his comments on the Revolution in France and elsewhere.

So the counter argument is that "marriage" is an immutable natural law concept that cannot and should not be challenged or changed? Hm. Doesn't that run into a problem when one considers that the institution of marriage has been changing throughout history? Why did so-called modern "marriage" get to co-opt the word "marriage" away from previous uses of the term that we would now describe as contract marriage, arranged marriage, forced marriage, polygamous marriage, chattel marriage (with one partner unable to break the bond and/or have rights outside the marriage while the other does) but no further changes are permitted? That "modern" change (for it was quite modern at one time to think of marriage as a wholly voluntary joining of two equals) was OK ... this "modern" change, not so much. Interesting.

As for Burke, my recollection is that his fiery disdain was for athiesm than of gay marriage. But it's been a while since I read Burke, so I won't swear to that.

When you cease to call only real marriage "marriage" and the ersatz thing modernity wishes to foist on us is called marriage it ceases to be as strong an institution for children's upbringing and well being.

Precisely how and why does that weakening take place? I have never seen or heard any supporting evidence; it seems sufficient merely to repeat the assertion.

I would respectfully argue that "children's upbringing and well being" is a function of the adult(s) responsible, rather than of an institution into which the adult(s) may or may not have entered.